Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
- Thread starter vixenbabe
- Start date
I love it. As long as we do the same for speeders and every other traffic violator. Also a big red "A" for "adulterers".
Note:
If there were any evidence at all that laws had any impact on DUI driving, I would support them.
But in the last 25 years there has been a mountain of anti-DUI legislation, and the percentage of alcohol related fatalities has gone UP.
Note:
If there were any evidence at all that laws had any impact on DUI driving, I would support them.
But in the last 25 years there has been a mountain of anti-DUI legislation, and the percentage of alcohol related fatalities has gone UP.
vixenbabe said:
Very few states have it. Florida, for example, does not, nor does NY.
In most states, there are mandatory sentences. Judges have very little discretion, the administrative sides of the sentencing are mandatory in almost all 50 states.
Actually not every states requires this. Those that do, enforce it pretty strictly. It's a touchy subject; parents oddly feel better when Big Brother is protecting their kids.
Optimus B said:
LOL! And public floggings with a wet noodle too.
This licenese plate thing is more catering to our soccer-mommy culture of stupid people who ignore a mountain of evidence that clearly states these things do not work.
vixenbabe said:
I'm one of them, sorta. Just not in Ohio.
For $25,000 I was able to avoid a conviction for DUI. I got a lesser charge.
Laugh it up. Your tax dollars are supporting this nonsense as ALCOHOL RELATED FATALITIES ARE UP.
hahahaha! Less money for you, but atleast it;s funny, right! hahahahahaha.
nice perspective.
vixenbabe
Classy Skank
Oh please...I would no more laugh at someone with that kinda plate than I would laugh at you for getting nabbed.
Learn a lesson?
Actually, I'm with you on the whole thing. It's a good idea on paper but not in the real world.
My hubby works with a guy who has more DUI's on his record, loss of DL and STILLLLL drives on Ohio roads. I guess it'll take for him to kill someone before he get's his due justice!
Learn a lesson?
Actually, I'm with you on the whole thing. It's a good idea on paper but not in the real world.
My hubby works with a guy who has more DUI's on his record, loss of DL and STILLLLL drives on Ohio roads. I guess it'll take for him to kill someone before he get's his due justice!
vixenbabe said:
The only lesson that can bea learned is that special interest legislation is bad. I didn't hit anyone, or do any damage, and I had to spend $25,000 to keep this of my record.
Save the charges for the people who actually harm someone.
Tell a local politican how you feel.
When he kills someone, he deserves harsh punishment. Until then, he doesn;t.
vixenbabe
Classy Skank
Matt....I lost two pals a few year's ago to a young man who fell asleep a the wheel heading south on I-75...Not even a trace of Cough syrup in this kid's system...Sooo... Bad shit happens to good people all the time!
I'm not sure if I agree with your thoughts on until someone kills someone though. The man I'm talking about has spent more "weekend" time for his DUI than I am old! He continues to drive with that kinda record too. Wrong..VERY wrong!
I can't believe he is still on the roads driving WITHOUT a license and DRINKING while doing it. There is something WAAAAY wrong with that kinda picture, Matt!
A mistake is a mistake..We all done 'em...But...DAMN, six DUI'S and a suspended lic. and stillll driving? (scratching my ass on this one)
Perhaps it's due to the fact that he's got a solid , respectable job in the community?! We'll turn the other way while you continue to drink and drive without a valid lic.(see no evil factor?)
I'm not sure if I agree with your thoughts on until someone kills someone though. The man I'm talking about has spent more "weekend" time for his DUI than I am old! He continues to drive with that kinda record too. Wrong..VERY wrong!
I can't believe he is still on the roads driving WITHOUT a license and DRINKING while doing it. There is something WAAAAY wrong with that kinda picture, Matt!
A mistake is a mistake..We all done 'em...But...DAMN, six DUI'S and a suspended lic. and stillll driving? (scratching my ass on this one)
Perhaps it's due to the fact that he's got a solid , respectable job in the community?! We'll turn the other way while you continue to drink and drive without a valid lic.(see no evil factor?)
javaguru
Banned
So he should get a multi year jail sentence and permanent license suspension for a DUI? What about chronic speeders or red light runners? These people are serious accidents waiting to happen. Excessive speed is a factor in approximately 30% of fatal car accidents while alcohol is implicated in 40% of fatal accidents, think about that the next time you're speeding so you won't be five minutes late for an appointment.
If you kill someone while going 20 mph over the speed limit you will get charged with vehicular manslaughter. However, if you simply get caught for speeding 20 mph over the limit you get around a $100.00 fine and two points on your license. A nice little slap on the wrist for something that is a factor in 30% of fatal car accidents and especially when compared to a DUI punishment. Did anyone else know the founder of MADD left the organization because they started targetting recreational alcohol users instead of "hard core alcoholics" with BAC's of .15 and higher and responsible for the majority of fatal accidents? Finally, very few "innocent" people are killed in alcohol relate accidents. The vast majority of people killed in alcohol related accidents are intoxicated regardless fo what the propaganda has led you to believe.
Buddy_Christ
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
it all depends on the person. when i was in my late teens, we'd drink and then go drive around on the backroads, hitting trashcans (on purpose) and whatever. it was fun. i never thought i'd get in trouble.
a few years after that, i came home on leave, went to the bar, had a few, got in the car. i had done this before as well and never thought anything of it. my driving was excellent too. cop that pulled me over thought he was just going to write a speeding ticket, not make an arrest for a DUI (60 in a 45, and not even 2 seconds after i passed the speed trap, i realized how fast i was going and slowed down, remembering "oh, damn, this is a speed trap area, better watch it!")
my fines and penalties weren't too harsh (on the civilian side...on the military side, however, they fucked me for it for the last 2 years i was in, unnecessarily and excessively...3x more than anyone else ever got it!). i learned my lesson...FINALLY. only took one time of actually getting caught for me to wake up and say "oh shit, this IS wrong. bad things happen when you drink and drive!" some people are going to learn the first time, others aren't giong to learn until they lose everything, doesn't matter what the penalties are.
think about mandatory minimum laws. they were put into place with the concept that all humans are hedonistic and rational. what they didn't consider, however, is that everyone weighs the risk/benifits of every situation differently. so what may be a deterrant for one person is no where near a deterrant for another.
sounds like you went through hell on yours Matt. i ended up shelling out less than $2K, was accepted into PA's first time offender program, and the DUI has stayed off of my record. which all in all is a good thing, because i learned my lesson and won't ever put myself into that position again.
vixenbabe said:
Yep, it does. So why invent laws around some bad shit and not around others? This fatality was as preventable as any DUI fatality.
How many accidents has he caused? How much property damage? If he hasn't caused any, then how can anyone judge that he is "intoxicated"?
Not everyone is incoherently bombed at .08. Or .15 for that matter. Politicans say you are, and police have no discretion, nor do judges. Wacky, no?
If he hasn't hurt anyone, the only thing "wrong" with it is that he has an extensive record. If he has caused an accident or done damage, then he should be in jail.
The central question and the only one that really matters:
Has he caused accidents or harmed other people?
MattTheSkywalker said:
And thanks to special interests like MADD, more good people will be getting convicted of DUI, as they successfully lobby to get the legal blood-alcohol limit lowered.
I think that 1.0 or 1.2 is a reasonable legal limit. The drivers who are going out and killing people are usually blowing twice that or more. The only thing that lowering the limit to .8 or .6 will do is to penalize social drinkers.
vixenbabe
Classy Skank
JavaGuru said:
I'm NOT sure what should or could be done with my hubbies co-worker, Java. He's a drunk-plain and simple! I'd say the many months(closing in on year's) spent in alll the type of programs did not help him! But...He's NOT alone on the roads. I'm certain there are many more like him sharing our black- top on all the things you mentioned above!
Perhaps the loss of his job could get some attention. Sad thing is, the man I'm talking about 5 weeks paid vacation(so he uses that time for his "jail time"- He also works a job where he works 5 days straight and is off 4 days- so he can schedule his "jail time" during those times too. Maybe this is the key....Make him do the time on his work days! Hmmmm????!!!!
Again, we all do stupid things once in awhile..But, doing them more than once calls for more serious actions- IMO! Hitting them in the wallet is not enough either!(I know for a fact the guy who works with my hubby does'nt have insurance either)
F.Y.I.-"speed demons"..I'm married to one of those!!! He at least keeps it on a race track- THANK GOD!
No easy answers!
javaguru
Banned
Then why not punish speeding in a similar fashion? Imagine if a citation for speeding 8mph over the limit resulted in a one year license suspension, $700.00 fine, and three days in jail (6 days if 15mph or more over), and mandatory counseling for a first offense? I'm sure it would have the same effect on a certain number of people as the DUI penalties did for yourself. However, there is a mountain of research in the criminal justice field showing that deterrance doesn't work very well at preventing crime. As a matter of fact, aggravated assaulst and murders actually have increased in many states after the adoption of the death penalty.
Isn't it ironic the DUI laws expect those with the most impaired judgement make the best decison, not to drive????
javaguru
Banned
With that number of DUI's he should have a very long term license suspension and only work privelages as well as a court mandated breathalyzer in his car. There ar a lot of shitty drivers on our roads but I still firmly believe in serious punishment for actual harm caused.
On a side note, I think it would be funny that chronic speeders be mandated to pay for a special "speed regulator" that prevented their car from travelling over 65mph. LMAO, imagine the frustration.
vixenbabe
Classy Skank
JavaGuru said:
He has NO license, Java! Nada, Zippo, None! They yanked it and told him he needed to hail a cab to work if he had too!
Now you understand why I'm scratching my ass wondering how the hell he's getting away with ANY driving at all. Guess the state would need to hire someone to sit on his front steps every hour of the day!
Once, someone called into the local police and told them he drove his to work that day! Guess what? They hauled his ass into jail for some more weekend work down at the local park picking up trash. WTF?
F.Y.I.- It was his wife's car he took that time! I wonder how many cars she's bought in her name for him, and how MUCH$$ she's paying to drive on the roads! Yikes! Sounds like she needs a good slap up side the head herself for allowing this shit to happen too!
lol@ the speed regulator!
C
Code
Guest
I believe in some counties in Texas, sexual offenders have to have some sort of sign in their yard.
manny78 said:
GoldenDelicious
New member
i do not believe that the stigma attached to this method is worth its (dubious) benefits
my personal spin on road laws has been simple, and has remained unchanged for several years:
decrease the value of fines, but drastically increase the number of speed cameras, red light cameras, and breath testing units
it is all too easy to slip through the gaps. i know many, many speed demons who have never been caught, and they delight in the fact
a much better deterrent is to increase the odds of being caught. simple.
my personal spin on road laws has been simple, and has remained unchanged for several years:
decrease the value of fines, but drastically increase the number of speed cameras, red light cameras, and breath testing units
it is all too easy to slip through the gaps. i know many, many speed demons who have never been caught, and they delight in the fact
a much better deterrent is to increase the odds of being caught. simple.
Deus Ex Machina
New member
Good idea 
Deus Ex Machina
New member
Re: Re: Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
It's for our own safety. The people are not smart enough to take care of themselves. Benjamin Franklin was wrong, the Whigs were right!
BO-DEN said:
It's for our own safety. The people are not smart enough to take care of themselves. Benjamin Franklin was wrong, the Whigs were right!
Re: Re: Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
Word. But ignorantidiot soccer mommies and those who think the same way say "I need Big Brother to protect my kids". And they vote for this nonsense.
And stupid people feel good about this legislation even though a mountain of evidence indicates that the ONLY thing to effect DUIs is the economy.
On to the general point:
Government has usde any angle they can to wrangle more control.
Through the education system they have even weaseled their filthy ways into our families, if you are stupid enough to send your kids to public schools, that is.
What parent would let their kids stay with a complete stranger who fills their head up with stuff the parents may not approve of all day long? The answer: YOU! If you send your kids to public schools, that is.
(They're still in the private schools too, less visibly).
Through endless regulation and taxation, they have handcuffed our productive business people and made it hard for business to grow. A free market economy has almost zero unemployment. I would be hiring people left and right to do stuff for me. (Invalids etc) Yet ours always does.
We are outsourcing jobs not only for raw cost reasons, but because of the destruction that government has wrought on our economy.
BO-DEN said:
Word. But ignorantidiot soccer mommies and those who think the same way say "I need Big Brother to protect my kids". And they vote for this nonsense.
And stupid people feel good about this legislation even though a mountain of evidence indicates that the ONLY thing to effect DUIs is the economy.
On to the general point:
Government has usde any angle they can to wrangle more control.
Through the education system they have even weaseled their filthy ways into our families, if you are stupid enough to send your kids to public schools, that is.
What parent would let their kids stay with a complete stranger who fills their head up with stuff the parents may not approve of all day long? The answer: YOU! If you send your kids to public schools, that is.
(They're still in the private schools too, less visibly).
Through endless regulation and taxation, they have handcuffed our productive business people and made it hard for business to grow. A free market economy has almost zero unemployment. I would be hiring people left and right to do stuff for me. (Invalids etc) Yet ours always does.
We are outsourcing jobs not only for raw cost reasons, but because of the destruction that government has wrought on our economy.
BO-DEN
New member
Re: Re: Re: Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
WORD! great post!
i acually was thinking about posting a thread asking for you guys opinion.
i was watching some space age movie... they had flying cars and all the future stuff.
i was gunna ask : just how much dose big buisness,and goverment with they'r control tactics slow our scoical, and technological growth.
like how texico and other fuel companys buy prototypes of electric cars.
BO-DEN
MattTheSkywalker said:
WORD! great post!
i acually was thinking about posting a thread asking for you guys opinion.
i was watching some space age movie... they had flying cars and all the future stuff.
i was gunna ask : just how much dose big buisness,and goverment with they'r control tactics slow our scoical, and technological growth.
like how texico and other fuel companys buy prototypes of electric cars.
BO-DEN
Optimus B
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
interesting thought. i'm guessing alot. if someone had an invention that rendered the internal combustion engine obsolete thereby simultaneously quashing the need for petroleum, don't you think that some very wealthy people would be a little pissed about that?BO-DEN said:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
Big business itself has no "power." No one forces those prototype makers to sell to Texaco or anyone.
All power and assistance comes from the government.
Government has shown a willingness to fuck with the economy (to our detriment, always: crises from the Great Deperssion to the S&L scndal can be tied directly to government intervention into the exconomy)
Sonce the government always intrudes, then business has no choice but to do what government asks: lobby, etc. If the government left business alone, market forces would determine what happens.
BO-DEN said:
Big business itself has no "power." No one forces those prototype makers to sell to Texaco or anyone.
All power and assistance comes from the government.
Government has shown a willingness to fuck with the economy (to our detriment, always: crises from the Great Deperssion to the S&L scndal can be tied directly to government intervention into the exconomy)
Sonce the government always intrudes, then business has no choice but to do what government asks: lobby, etc. If the government left business alone, market forces would determine what happens.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
No.
In a free market, capital flows where it gernates the highest returns. People with the most money could capitalize onnew opportunities.
Remember, governmnt has all the power to control the economy.
Business has none.
Optimus B said:
No.
In a free market, capital flows where it gernates the highest returns. People with the most money could capitalize onnew opportunities.
Remember, governmnt has all the power to control the economy.
Business has none.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ohio's new RED/Yellow DUI license plates
Economic progress anyway.
You cannot redistrubute wealth without cionsequences. Wealth is produced, not faling from the sky.
The producer is blind to where it goes:
1. Poor Americans
2. Iraqis
3. Burned in a giant fire
It is irrelvant to the producer of it. There is no "good" redistribution of wealth in the eys of the producer of the wealth. So why should anyone else have a say in where the producer's wealth goes?
BO-DEN said:
Economic progress anyway.
You cannot redistrubute wealth without cionsequences. Wealth is produced, not faling from the sky.
The producer is blind to where it goes:
1. Poor Americans
2. Iraqis
3. Burned in a giant fire
It is irrelvant to the producer of it. There is no "good" redistribution of wealth in the eys of the producer of the wealth. So why should anyone else have a say in where the producer's wealth goes?
wutangnomo
New member
What happened to equal treatment? If they do that then they need to start branding every other type of criminal.
collegiateLifter
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
The only problem is, once he kills someone, that person is never coming back. What kind of punishment is suitable for (recklessly) killing another person?
GoldenDelicious said:
That's absurd. Speeding is just a bit of harmless mischief. This sort of police-state mentality is the last thing we need.
I guess I'm one of those "speed demons." I regularly hit 90-100 MPH on the cross-town expressway on the way to the gym in the morning, and often find myself in a whole line of cars going that fast. Haven't had a moving violation in at least 12 years.
Speed limits are insulting. I feel that I am a better judge of how fast I can safely operate my vehicle than some legislator.
BO-DEN
New member
i dont think having a plate like this is gunna make some scum bag (NOT DRINK AND DRIVE AGAIN)
the only thing i see is people with this plate being herassed by police anytime they drive after dark.
like i said if you treat people like children they will act like children.
BO-DEN
the only thing i see is people with this plate being herassed by police anytime they drive after dark.
like i said if you treat people like children they will act like children.
BO-DEN
Synpax
Well-known member
MattTheSkywalker said:
So anyone - regardless of how intoxicated they are - should be able to drive without any penalty on public roads unless and until they harm someone else?
That is stupid.
The roads are owned by the people - you may not like how they paid for them (progressive taxes, etc) - but they do own them. The people, through their elected representatives, have set some rules for their own safety.
If you owned a business that operated dangerous heavy machinery, you would probably forbay any employee who was drunk from operating that machinery. It would be your right - you owned the machinery.
Similarly, I am a 'shareholder' on the public roads, and I vote that drunks should be kept off. This isn't a matter of privacy - they are my roads - and this isn't a constitutional violation - none of the 10 amendments are violated.
It would be immoral and unconstitutional if the gov'ment ruled you couldn't have a Nader bumper sticker on your car (1st amendment political speech, etc), but this isn't the case.
I also think the temporary DUI plates are a good idea; few things motivate good behavior than shame.
javaguru
Banned
The same could be said about any poor driver. The elderly driver, chronic speeder, tired driver and red light runner are fatal accidents just waiting to happen. However, for most of US history serious punishment has been based on actual harm, not potential harm. Statistically the most dangerous demographic of drivers are teenagers followed by the elderly. The State could easily change the driving age from say 21 to 65, you have no right to drive according to the Supreme Court, and dramatically reduce the number of accidents but at the cost of unfairly penalizing responsible drivers outside of those parameters. You need a big brother police state to attempt the regulation of potential harm and for little gain and a great loss of freedom.
BO-DEN
New member
Synpax said:
this IMO is the problem
the "please goverment protect us"idea is what will have us a police state within a decade.
no its not stupid its called (nnocent until proven guilty) and this
idea is what the justice in this country must rely on if it is gunna be any kind of fair.
they keep passing laws that make it easyier on police.
GOD forbid they acuually have to cruze and find drunk drivers... they will just spend the night waiting for a certin color plate to drive by between cat naps in the squad car..
justice as a whole is a joke in this country
BO-DEN
javaguru
Banned
So you're one of the assholes responsible for steroids being scheduled, this misguided drug war and ephedra banned???
Honestly, unless you're a member of one of the special interest groups getting most of the laws/administrative rules enacted you have next to zero impact as a "regular" voter. The occasional grass roots campaign that does get laws/rules enacted requires the mobilization of the "typical" American and the typical American is an ignorant sheep that responds to whatever media propaganda they hear. What does that say about the quality of the laws enacted or creating the "best" outcome for society?
PIGEON-RAT
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
you know, murder has gone up too. i guess the laws are ineffective, so we should just stop sending murderers to prison. specious reasoning there bub
javaguru
Banned
Comparing murder to DUI is a ridiculous assertion. If you are are guilty of a DUI you have harmed nobody or their property. Infringing on constitutional rights and inflicting serious penalties for an infraction that is on par with speeding as far as causality in freeway deaths per year is ridiculous since it has zero impact.
PIGEON-RAT
New member
JavaGuru said:
you missed the point. it has nothing to do with the severity of the crimes, i was pointing out that just because offenses have increased despite legislation, it does not mean that the legislation should be rescinded.
javaguru
Banned
Punishment has everything to do with the severity of the crime, which is the point Matt is making. The laws punishing murder are based on punishment for ending the life of another human being intentionally, a moral obligation if you will. This is a completely different animal from an act that harms nobody and where the laws are designed for deterrance. The special interest group MADD claims increasing penalties is for the purpose of keeping drunk drivers off the roads, deterrance and not punishment. Based on the most recent data the past 22 years of lobbying and infringing on constitutional rights have not resulted in their desired outcome. Laws regarding murder are based on long held moral principles where DUI laws are the result of the intervention of special interest propaganda and not the normal evolution of the legal system. Remember, the Supreme Court has allowed lawmakers to infringe on constitutional rights if the purpose is the detection of drunk drivers, fairly harsh for a violation on par with speeding.
collegiateLifter said:
They don't come back when someone is killed in a speeding accident. O r an inattention accident. Or a hunting accident for that matter.
All are preventable. Other than appeal to emotion, your statement has no purpose.
As to your question:
Typically, when someone is killed "recklessly" there area few levels of punishment:
Criminally negligent homicide
Manslaughter
Murder (by depraved indifference to human life)
The laws are on the books. Inventing more is ludicrous.
Synpax said:
it is stupid. I never said that - those are your words.
As for my words:
DUI/no collision should be a traffic ticket, with a fine. Maybe a night in the "holding pen" and that's it. No misdemeanor charges or any of that. Points on the license and be done with it.
The "people" as a group do not have a collective mind or thought process. The "people" are a set of individuals. Special interests created those laws - individuals who want Big Brother to protect them from some fake evil. In other words, tyranny of the majority.
How easily you try to blur the line from public to private.
Have you no concept of individual property rights? I would have the choice to do whatever the fuck I damn well pleased with my machinery without you or anyone telling me what to do.
FYI I do own a business and I keep it private - no public offering now or any time soon.
The idea that a majority believes something is good does not make it so. The majority could simply vote themselves handouts from a more productive minority too.
You also make the silly assumption that a cop and a black box are better at determining intoxication the empirical data such as a collision. When they are too drunk to drive, get them off the road.
The manufacturer of the machine that is used to test breath will not warranty their machine for accuracy. Does that bother you?
The original DUI threshold was .15 BAC and has been lowered. AS it has been lowered, the % of DUi fatalities has remained unchanged. Punishments got stricter. FThe % if fatalities remained unchanged. In other words, nothing is happeneing. Does that bother you?
A mountain of empirical evidence says no progress.
As an aside:
Do you know what the 4th and 5th amendments are? Do you know the the US Supreme Court actually ruled that DUI is an exception to those amendments?
So, there are serious Constitutional problems. The tyranny of an idiotic majority justifies this.
See. above. Even the War on Terror doesn;t have Constittuional exceptions. it doesn;t evenhave roadbloicks. DUI does, but then again I guess if you believe in the will of the public over individual rights, who cares.
Right, Komrade?
collegiateLifter
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
is depraved indifference not an emotive judgement?
collegiateLifter said:
No. It is a decision arrived at through reason and clearly defined legal language.
Crimes like "assault", "fraud" and "burglary" have clearly defined legal standards too. "Murder by depraved indifference to human life" also does.
Synpax
Well-known member
I'll just respond to MTS here, as some of the other guys sort of leapt at hyperbole suggesting that heavy penalties on drunk drivers is the equivilant to Waco.
Who do the roads belong to?
That is who gets to set the rules for them. Because the ownership is administered through the US/state governments, there are limits on those rules via the US Constitution.
Maybe your real problem is with the government controlling the highways. However, were the roads privatly run, likely by a conglamoration of trucking associations and the insurance industry, I'm pretty certain all cars permitted to drive on it would have to have a breathalizer installed or something even stricter than what we have now.
The penalties on drunk drivers aren't nearly high enough. If *I* privatly owned a road a DUI x2 should be a 5 year revocation of a drivers liscence and any driving offense with the slightest measurable amount of alchohol would be one year revocation.
And MTS - if you could buy your way out of a DUI, the problem isn't with the DUI laws, but the legal system.
Who do the roads belong to?
That is who gets to set the rules for them. Because the ownership is administered through the US/state governments, there are limits on those rules via the US Constitution.
Maybe your real problem is with the government controlling the highways. However, were the roads privatly run, likely by a conglamoration of trucking associations and the insurance industry, I'm pretty certain all cars permitted to drive on it would have to have a breathalizer installed or something even stricter than what we have now.
The penalties on drunk drivers aren't nearly high enough. If *I* privatly owned a road a DUI x2 should be a 5 year revocation of a drivers liscence and any driving offense with the slightest measurable amount of alchohol would be one year revocation.
And MTS - if you could buy your way out of a DUI, the problem isn't with the DUI laws, but the legal system.
BO-DEN
New member
Synpax said:
this is my problem
the way you talk its like you feel you acually have control over goverment... that shit is a joke
we vote for the guy that we hope will do what we would do with the power... problem is he wont.
goverment is concerned more about fine money then jail time or any other penalty... so this means you can buy your way out of troble
this is the goverment we have.. no matter who you vote for.
(MONEY IS GOD)
Synpax said:
the legal system is shit.... money = freedom and vice versa
BO-DEN
PIGEON-RAT
New member
JavaGuru said:
i really don't think you were reading my posts. and your post is laced with an obvious bias. my point, which you refuse to see, is that increased offenses is not grounds to completely discard legislation. i applied your reasoning to murder, but it could've been any crime. considering only the rate of offenses is not a way to directly discern the effectiveness of a law. i compared it to murder because murder rates have risen. using your reasoning, we should repeal anti-homicide laws because they "obviously" aren't working.
but you went on a rant stating that DUI is "an act that harms nobody" (tell that to the many who've died as a result), and MADD is a special interest group. they're a special interest how? they try to save lives? they don't profit off of their lobbying.
then comparing drunk driving to speeding is the commonly parroted, weak argument. from that comparison one could also argue that we should increase speeding penalties to be on par with those for DUI. but the fact is, speeding is immensely more common than DUI, so drunk driving still does a disproportional amount of harm.
i've seen plenty of rants on this thread, but no viable solution.
Matt, how many times have you driven drunk since your offense? more? as much? less?
BO-DEN
New member
you know...
huge penalty for dui is stupid
thats like me going to jail for 10 years cause i could have killed someone when i crashed into a tree.
"YOU coulda hurt someone" i was luck and i didnt.
so i got a ticket for 300$ and points on my licence
if you kill someone drunk driving you sould be harshly punished but if your cuaght drunk driving it should be suspention for a few months and a big fine.
(in my opinion)
BO-DEN
huge penalty for dui is stupid
thats like me going to jail for 10 years cause i could have killed someone when i crashed into a tree.
"YOU coulda hurt someone" i was luck and i didnt.
so i got a ticket for 300$ and points on my licence
if you kill someone drunk driving you sould be harshly punished but if your cuaght drunk driving it should be suspention for a few months and a big fine.
(in my opinion)
BO-DEN
Synpax
Well-known member
BO-DEN said:
I do. My actions are directly responsible for the election of the current president. My inaction was partially responsible for the election of the previous president. Without my actions, Bush would have lost at least one and maybe more states that he won. The only difference between you and me is that I refused to believe that I had no control.
I've also influenced many national and local elections and, long before I could vote, I was personally responsible for getting my city to ban obscene t-shirts from being worn in public. Lucky for me, those who had a different opinion shared your mindset of futility.
BO-DEN said:
Voting is the first step. Giving money, giving time, organizing others - you can get anything done, even things you shouldn't.
BO-DEN said:
Not true. The government is made of individuals. The power is in the hands of those who are smarter and more dedicated (more tha latter than the former) to their objectives.
BO-DEN said:
Actually, if you believe in a God, that is true. Money is a liquid form of man-made value that reflects a new house, a car, a new medical procedure. The problem is that money (human production) is being treated like the devil.
BO-DEN said:
Not usually, but in a lot of high profile situations, that seems to be the case. However, money cannot make a jury stupid (see the OJ case, the first Menendez trial, etc.)
I'm regret that your experiences (or lack thereof) in the political system has influenced your view of how things work. I hope you are more motivated to be involved than to sit back and let the country and the world go to hell. You and I probably agree on more than we disagree with, policy wise.
BO-DEN
New member
Synpax said:
i dont agree,
and i dont know you but if you had met me you would see that NO canidates represent me. voting for president is a joke for me becuase i can vote for dean who hates niggers... or i can vote for bush who also hates niggers....
hmmmm
Synpax said:
im sorry i just dont believe you, i know that dosnt matter to you but .. most of the changes id like to make would have me put in jail because they are so differant.
and also you promoting cencorship shows me how VERY differant me and you are.
my class is kept busy friend.... i have to worry about buisness.. i can only watch debates... read as much as i can about canidates and hope they dont pass a law that puts me in federal prison.Synpax said:
"smarter and more dedicated" meaning big buisness that put up big contributions?Synpax said:
Synpax said:
i really believe the universe is much bigger then the tiny sherade that is money.
i could never chase money as if it was divine... its just not that valuable.
Synpax said:
maybee it cant, but my point is let me BO-DEN be charged with ANY of the high profile crime cases of this year ... and were do you think BO-DEN would be sitting? innocent or not.
kobe,Mike Jackson,laci peterson,..etc
Synpax said:
like i said before.. i have my work and my training thats it. maybee if i got a smaller apartment, got a mo-ped
and only worked out 3 times a week..
i could save america.
but even then i still dont believe the power belongs to us.
BO-DEN
Synpax
Well-known member
BO-DEN said:
You say you don't believe me, but there are hundreds of people on both sides who could have won/lost the last election, I am but one of them. If you don't believe me, then there is nothing to discuss.
Besides, how would you know? Where do you get your information? What evidence do you have that President Bush hates Condolezza Rice, Colon Powell, and Rodrick Page?
Re: your above comment, MADD is not a big business and I don't think they even contribute money.
Besides, based on what you are saying, I'm doubtful you are registered to vote or if you are that you actually do vote. So before anyone even had the chance to take away your rights you have already surrendered them.
Synpax said:
I'm pretty familiar with the workings of government.
The fact that something *is* so, doesn't make effective policy. All you're saying is "government did something, using the process of government, so, it's OK." That could justify anything: torture etc. The issue at hand:
It's hard to understand how you are able to take a position which punishes one individual group (motorists over .08 BAC) before they do any harm. Are you punishing "potential risk"?
What is actually being punished by current DUI legislation?
If that is your stance, there is 25 years of evidence that disproves that methodology as a means to controlling the problem. It is also logically inconsistent with the disproprtionate sentences given DUI offenders and speeders, since both are roughly a similar risk.
FYI from another post, MADD is a massive lobbying interest, so much so that (literally) over 99% of what their local chapters collect is sent to the home office.
Would be the road owner's discretion. And they'd have every right to. I could understand that, thopugh would they likeiwise encourage speed limiting devices?
WEll, first off....you wouldn't own the licensing apparatus so all you could so would be to keep people off YOUR road.
But if you could...
DUI with or without collision? Would you discriminate? Would you use the same ineffective methods to measure BAC?
Secondly - I default to the same question as above.
Why punish DUI drivers so aggressively when the damage they do is similar to speeders? And how do we justify punishment before any damage? That's the illogic.
At $25,000, it was hardly a bargain to get "out of it."
javaguru
Banned
You're completely missing the point. The Supreme Court has created a constitutional exception to catch drunk drivers. People convicted of DUI are punished in excess of the harm caused when compared to other similar traffic offenses. Despite enhanced punishments death rates have increased. The fact the laws have failed to achieve their objective is a secondary reason. The government could punish littering with a mandatory ten years in prison and it still wouldn't change the fact the punishment is far in excess of the harm to society and whether or not it deters littering is secondary. The primary reason I bring up the fact is to let people know it hasn't saved lives, a lot of people out there are more than happy to trade rights for lives and I'm not one of them
Driving with an elevated doesn't harm anyone, just like talking on a cell phone doesn't cause harm. They both increase the chance of causing harm but do not cause any harm intrinsically.
special interest
n.
A person, group, or organization attempting to influence legislators in favor of one particular interest or issue.
There is no evidence MADD has saved a single life. As a matter of fact their claims regarding lives saved could not be backed by the NHTSA. MADD has also blatantly mislead lied to the public by claiming alcohol related deaths were drunk driving deaths. MADD has assets in excess of 25 million dollars and their officers earn salaries equivelant to those of major corporations. They have failed to back legislation that would help victims of drunk drivers in favor of their major contributors, big insurance. The American Institute of Philanthropy rates non-profit organizations and has given them a grade of "D". They have profited greatly from their misinformation campaign.
I know there is no concrete data on actual drunk driving rates so it's impossible to make an accurate comparison to speeding.
You don't agree with the speeding comparison, A New England Journal of Medicine report states that, "The risk of getting into an
accident while talking on a cellular phone is the same as driving with a .10% BAC", drunk in every state.
Last edited:
Synpax
Well-known member
MattTheSkywalker said:
I'm pretty familiar with the workings of government.
But you are not arguing policies, you are talking abstract 'rights' and I am explaining to you how rights work and how they aren't being violated.
Yep. You cannot put another person at risk. ARe you suggesting that 'attempted' murder not be punished? There was no damage done. And it's hard to say that I am trying to punish one group of individuals when discussing purely elective behavior. Do laws against child molestation 'punish one individual group' - IE peadophiles?MattTheSkywalker said:
MattTheSkywalker said:
There is no evidence. Your evidence is the equivilant to suggesting the dismantaling of police departments because crime rates are rising (well, OBVIOUSLY having police departments isn't working!).
MattTheSkywalker said:
So what? They are massive because a lot of people have been killed by drunk drivers and their relatives want to do something about it. What's wrong with being 'massive' or putting their money into the place that gets the most bang for the buck. Sounds like you are digging here. I really doubt what you said is true, anyway, as most legislation for them happens at the state level.
MattTheSkywalker said:
Don't care. I could choose to or choose not to use their road.
MattTheSkywalker said:
I would have to make a licensing apparatus. The NRA range has a licensing apparatus, etc. etc.
You and I live on different planets. On your planet, a drunk driver cannot be punished until he does 'damage.' On my planet, and on the planet of rational beings, merely being drunk enough not to operate the vehicle by the best measureable means is punishable. We just have to disagree on that one and I'm not sure anything short of losing someone important to you could change your mind. Maybe 10 years will change your mind. Or maybe you will go to your grave thinking that. I have no idea. But it is probably beyond my ability to convince you to come to my planet.MattTheSkywalker said:
How exactly did 25k get you out of it? Poor folks out there with already twisted views of the legal system like de-bone are getting the impression that it was underhanded. Was it really?MattTheSkywalker said:At $25,000, it was hardly a bargain to get "out of it."
Synpax said:
OK, fine. We'll agree that I am talking rights and that the process of government, flawed as it is, was used to achieve the current system.
Here you are in error. The crime of murder requires an intent element not present in other homicides. Thus the presence of intent to kill PLUS action is enough to convict.
As to the point you are (I think) trying to make, the legal system has already dealt with these issues:
There is no such thing as attempted manslaughter or attempted criminally negligent homicide. These crimes rightfully are not crimes until someone is killed.
There is no charge for attemtped manslaughter or attempted criminally negligent homicide because the legal system recognizes that there is no intent element in these crimes.
Likewise DUI has no intent element.
Since all behavior is elective, I don't know what you mean here.
Most cities did not have full time police departments until around 1900. Even enormous NY city didn't start until 1858. We survived.
Crime is an economic phenomenon, always has been and always will be.
Police and punishment have little impact on crime.
Something should be done about it. The first step is recognizing that existing laws ARE NOT WORKING. DUI fatalities are UP as a percentage of all fatalities since the years before MADD.
Thee is ZERO bang for the buck. IT IS NOT WORKING TO REDUCE FATALITIES.
It's special interest legislation. Do you think this is OK?
Actually the federal government has massive nput. The federal government compels all states to have a .08 BAC as the "legal limit" and a 21-year old drinking age, with the threat of witholding highway funds.
What is drunk? How do you measure it? The original standard as prescribed by the AMA was .15. it has gotten lower and lwoer to .06 in some states.
What the hell is drunk? Define drunk. Define legally intoxicated. My definition is: when you cause damage, you can't operate the car. If you don't, then you can.
Your planet = someone else determines when I am drunk. Thus, on your planet rationality is a non-issue,snce the tdecision is made by someone other than the operator.
Already happened. He's still dead. So is the DUI driver. M
It wasn;t underhanded.
When evidence is presetned at rtial it becoems public record and anyone can use it in subsequent cases. (Case law).
I presented a lot of shit- engineer's report, expert testimony about the problems in the breath machine, etc.
If I were acquitted, there would have alot of case law for future DUI accusations to use,and it would have been tough to get a conviction in FLorida.
As a backup I had a lot of grounds for appeal. The state attorney doesn't want to use resources to fight this on appeal.
Eventually they offered me a lesser charge, even though I was .17 and they hate to plea high BACs.
FYI at .17 I was fine to control the car.
Testosterone boy
New member
Higher fatalities despite the best efforts of MADD and cops hell bent on passing out DUI's???
Cars handle better, brake better, seat belts are mandatory and air bags are the norm.
Something is seriously wrong. Perhaps there is a lot of drugs being consumed that go undetected and affect driving? Perhaps prescription drugs affect driving?
Here are two theories of mine:
1) I see a significant of hyper aggressive driving for very short distances that is extremely dangerous. The driving is, in fact, made possible by the handling, tires, brakes, etc that were supposed to make driving safer. A 6 litre engine in a small car have been known to contribute. Look at the insurance rates for fast cars.....they were developed studying the road records of this car and driver combo.
2) There are growing disparaties in the size of automobiles. What happens when a 6000 pound Escalade plows into the side of a 2000 pound (both are wild guesses) Prius? We did much better when 4000 pounds collided with 4000 pounds.
Also SUV's are very popular and very prone to rollovers.
Cars handle better, brake better, seat belts are mandatory and air bags are the norm.
Something is seriously wrong. Perhaps there is a lot of drugs being consumed that go undetected and affect driving? Perhaps prescription drugs affect driving?
Here are two theories of mine:
1) I see a significant of hyper aggressive driving for very short distances that is extremely dangerous. The driving is, in fact, made possible by the handling, tires, brakes, etc that were supposed to make driving safer. A 6 litre engine in a small car have been known to contribute. Look at the insurance rates for fast cars.....they were developed studying the road records of this car and driver combo.
2) There are growing disparaties in the size of automobiles. What happens when a 6000 pound Escalade plows into the side of a 2000 pound (both are wild guesses) Prius? We did much better when 4000 pounds collided with 4000 pounds.
Also SUV's are very popular and very prone to rollovers.
Synpax
Well-known member
Let me enlighten you.
A man's claim to certain rights and priviledges are rooted in him being a rational being in control of his own actions. When a man chemically disables his ability to be rational and in control of his own actions, those rights and priviledges become forfit.
That is why it is not necessary for a DUI driver to do harm before he is punished. Intent to do harm is irrelevant.
EOS.
A man's claim to certain rights and priviledges are rooted in him being a rational being in control of his own actions. When a man chemically disables his ability to be rational and in control of his own actions, those rights and priviledges become forfit.
That is why it is not necessary for a DUI driver to do harm before he is punished. Intent to do harm is irrelevant.
EOS.
Synpax said:
EOS? How about LOL?
Where is THAT in the Constitution - that we lose our rights or privileges when we chemically disable our ability to be rational?
We have to be rational to have rights? So if I am arrested for DUI I can be treated like a war criminal in Saddam's Iraq because I am drunk? My rights are out the window? My house can be taken from me because I have no rights?
That's just plain goofy. Let's follow that one along for a minute... the handicapped don't have rights because they are not fully "rational"? Do they have rights? Should we execute them? They lose their right to life, liberty etc?
Sounds like Hitler's thought process. Is that off the MADD website?
Regardless - let's allow for your thought process. It still doesn't answer this question - and you;ve ducked it every time:
Who determines when a person is no longer in control of his actions?
You can't tell me that everyone is equally incapable of making decisions (or handling a car) at .08BAC. Since the legally intoxicated" BAC threshold has changed from .15 down to .06 in some states, are we free to assume that the body has changed in 20 years? Even .15 is not universally intoxicated.
Your system would result in taking rights away from some people who are in fact perfectly rational. That sounds like the MADD thought process.
yet there is one incontrovertible way to tell when a peson is incapable of handling their vehicle: when they do damage with it. Why not make that the standard for punishment?
Oh - as to "enlightening me" - you've basically called from arbitrary revocation of rights at the whim of the state. Nice one, Komrade.
Testosterone boy said:
Actually, the overall number of traffic fatalities are down. This is due to safer cars, better roads, airbags, crumple zones, etc.
The percentage of alcohol-related fatalities as a percentage of overall fatalities is UP.
It is up slightly over the past few years - however, it has never declined below the levels it was at in the 3 years before MADD existed.
Nothing is changing. People who think things are "working" and justice is being served have their heads inthe sand.
Synpax
Well-known member
MattTheSkywalker said:
It isn't, and we aren't discussing the Constitution - you already conceded to me the 'right' of the government to constitutionally do what it does several posts ago. What we are discussing is the abstract moral principles that should guide rulemaking in any society.
However, the principle is articulated in the Declaration of Independance, stating that all 'men' are created equal with certain inaliable rights, etc, and that is premised on men being rational beings. Ergo, the converse of that principle is that without rational ability, man has no rights. That is why it is moral to punish someone for DUI.
MattTheSkywalker said:
It must be done in proportion; you are here engaging in reductio ad absurdum (reducing a single part of my argument to extreme absurdity without regard for the context of that single part relative to a whole).
But yes, morally, you do have to be rational (capable of reason) to have rights. They are inescapably linked. That is your only claim to any such right. That is why you can own, cook and eat an animal but cannot do the same to a person. That is what makes men different.
MattTheSkywalker said:
In proportion, that is true, but you are engaging again in reductio ad absurdum.
The mentally handicapped do not have the right to vote. Do you disagree with this? Also, children under a certain age cannot vote or sign contracts because there is a presumption of irrationality until someone reaches a certain age. It's not a PERFECT way, and maybe technology can better determine a person's ability to be rational and maybe some 12 year olds should be able to vote. But the age thing is something we settle for now. I'd be happy to agree with a change in this if you could show a better way.
MattTheSkywalker said:
That's a red herring. That's strike three for having a serious discussion. I'm reluctant to have to say that if you keep that up, I'll have to pass on any further replies to this discussion. I kind of enjoy taking time each day to go back and forth with you, but if this is how it devolves, I'll have to go back to the training/diet/muscle food board.
My entire philosophy here articulated is my own which I developed maybe 8 years ago when thinking about the implications of making mind-altering substances illegal.
MattTheSkywalker said:
I didnt' realize I was ducking it, but this seemed unrelated to the main thrust of your argument, namely that the state cannot punish people before they inflict damage.
Sure, I'll agree with you that it's seemingly arbitrary. And I'll agree that there is science better able to determine when someone is truly impared as a driver. I have no disagreement.
However, like using age as a measuring stick for voting and contract rights, it's just something that has to do. If you were to assume for a moment that DUI should be punishable and were to devise a method to determine DUI status, I'm sure arguments could be made that it is too strict or too light - there are a lot of variables involved.
MattTheSkywalker said:
I addressed both of the above. Ben Franklin called government a necessary evil, so yes, the state has that right edited: I meant ability, not right- every state does. We are fortunate in that our state is driven by at least 50% of the public's decision, rather than the .001% of some other states, and that we have virtually unlimited freedom to try and persuade 50% to our side.
hint - name calling is not very persuasive.
Last edited:
Synpax said:
Crime has always fluctuated in proportion to one thing and one thing only: the economy.
Synpax
Well-known member
MattTheSkywalker said:
The problem with making a statement like that is that it is so easy to prove false.
But there’s little evidence to suggest that good economic times have much effect on crime. Crime rates rose every year between 1955 and 1972, even as the U.S. economy surged, with only a brief, mild recession in the early 1960s. By the time criminals took a breather in the early 1970s, crime rates had increased over 140 percent. Murder rates had risen about 70 percent, rapes more than doubled, and auto theft nearly tripled.
By the same token, a bad economy doesn’t always bring more crime. Crime rates fell about one third between 1934 and 1938 while the nation was struggling to emerge from the Great Depression and weathering another severe economic downturn in 1937 and 1938. Surely, if the economic theory held, crime should have been soaring.
Cited: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed111500a.cfm
game, set, match?
MattTheSkywalker said:
Thing is, in an accident, if anyone in either car, even a passenger, blows over the legal limit, it is listed as an "alcohol-related" accident. So if a sober guy runs a red light, t-bones another car, and kills its (sober) driver, but the t-boned car also contains a drunk passenger, who is not killed, it is chalked up as an "alcohol-related fatality." These stats are seriously skewed.
First off - I apologize for any name calling.
Government has no rights. Individuals have rights.
All I said was that government has followed the mechanisms of government to create the laws that currently exist. I only admitted this to concede that DUI laws were not passed by some "Imperial Fiat." (They exist extra-Constitutionally, as the US Supreme Court has created "DUI exceptions" to amendments 4 and 5, but that is maybe another issue.)
However, just because the mechanisms of government were followed, does not mean that the law is a good law. (Prohibition, 3/5 compromise etc. are all absurd examples of the "mechanism of government" being used to pass laws.)
The description of the rights as 'inalienable' means that the converse is irrelevant. The rights are derived from Natural law, which defies interpretation. The point was that "Men have inalienable rights" without regard as to why. Natural law is the 'why' and they may not be taken away on grounds that Natural law is invalid because of its roots.
it's a starting point.
Taking something to an extreme is a way for testing the logical validity of a proposal. If it doesn't survive that scrutiny, then the logical validity can't be accepted. it should still stand up logically.
Mentally handicapped do not lose their natural rights because of their impairment. (Inalienable). Voting is not an 'inalienable' right. They may not have all of their Constitutional rights - I don't know.
It's a related point. We discussed the theoretical - this is more of the practical / implementation, which bears out why the theoretical as currently existing is flawed.
With the current system, the state has the power to *arbitrarily* (your words) take away the rights of people. The person whose rights are taken away may or may not be irrational - it is the state who decides based on admittedly arbitrary criteria.
Given the priority placed on individual rights in the formation of this country, the idea of arbitrary abrogation of rights is repulsive. I took your idea to extremes to show you what happens when rights are abrogated. A little bit of abrogation or severe abrogation is conceptually the same to a country that holds individual rights as paramount. That's why I used extreme examples.
There is an empirical way to detrermine "irrationality" (intoxication). That method is through the occurence of a collision. That method is not arbitrary and does not infringe our concept of rights. The government is permitted to use force (due process) once an individual has infringed on the rights of others, but not before. The collision represents an infringement - the arbitrary standard you've espoused does not.
States or nations do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. Our government(s) exist to preserve these rights.
The fact that a majority calls for something does not mean it is good law. Comparing our system to others is a red herring.
Synpax said:
Government has no rights. Individuals have rights.
All I said was that government has followed the mechanisms of government to create the laws that currently exist. I only admitted this to concede that DUI laws were not passed by some "Imperial Fiat." (They exist extra-Constitutionally, as the US Supreme Court has created "DUI exceptions" to amendments 4 and 5, but that is maybe another issue.)
However, just because the mechanisms of government were followed, does not mean that the law is a good law. (Prohibition, 3/5 compromise etc. are all absurd examples of the "mechanism of government" being used to pass laws.)
The description of the rights as 'inalienable' means that the converse is irrelevant. The rights are derived from Natural law, which defies interpretation. The point was that "Men have inalienable rights" without regard as to why. Natural law is the 'why' and they may not be taken away on grounds that Natural law is invalid because of its roots.
it's a starting point.
Taking something to an extreme is a way for testing the logical validity of a proposal. If it doesn't survive that scrutiny, then the logical validity can't be accepted. it should still stand up logically.
Mentally handicapped do not lose their natural rights because of their impairment. (Inalienable). Voting is not an 'inalienable' right. They may not have all of their Constitutional rights - I don't know.
It's a related point. We discussed the theoretical - this is more of the practical / implementation, which bears out why the theoretical as currently existing is flawed.
With the current system, the state has the power to *arbitrarily* (your words) take away the rights of people. The person whose rights are taken away may or may not be irrational - it is the state who decides based on admittedly arbitrary criteria.
Given the priority placed on individual rights in the formation of this country, the idea of arbitrary abrogation of rights is repulsive. I took your idea to extremes to show you what happens when rights are abrogated. A little bit of abrogation or severe abrogation is conceptually the same to a country that holds individual rights as paramount. That's why I used extreme examples.
There is an empirical way to detrermine "irrationality" (intoxication). That method is through the occurence of a collision. That method is not arbitrary and does not infringe our concept of rights. The government is permitted to use force (due process) once an individual has infringed on the rights of others, but not before. The collision represents an infringement - the arbitrary standard you've espoused does not.
States or nations do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. Our government(s) exist to preserve these rights.
The fact that a majority calls for something does not mean it is good law. Comparing our system to others is a red herring.
Synpax said:
You can have this crime issue
Data persentation is always an issue with this - for example - did murder surge 140% while population grew 200%?
Addition of new laws (illegalizing of more drugs for example) creates more crimes. Is that an issue?
I am not trying to discredit your post on the topic - I'm not really
prepared to discuss it further. I need to look at it more closely to contest it in any meaningful manner. Another thread, maybe next week.
The DUI discussion continues above.
NMA's challenge to MADD
By Eric Peters
How many people would you guess are killed each year in the United States by drunk drivers? According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration (NHTSA), the figure is roughly 18,000 annually (17,970 in 2002). That's about 42 percent of all highway fatalities -- and works out to a drunk driving death "every 30 minutes, nearly 50 people a day," every day of the year, as a NHTSA radio ad put it. That's a lot of drunk driving -- even in a nation of 280 million people.
But is it an accurate portrayal?
According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), an advocacy group often at odds with the conventional wisdom on topics ranging from speed limits to mandatory seat belt laws, the numbers trotted out by NHTSA are wildly exaggerated -- puffed up by including deaths where alcohol was not the cause but merely present. In some cases, the driver may not have been drinking at all -- as when an inebriated pedestrain stray into a busy street and is struck by a vehicle. NHTSA defines such a fatality as "alcohol related" -- but that's not the same thing as caused by drunk driving. Similarly, an inebriated passenger riding home in a car that happens to be struck by a speeding car running a red light is not the victim of drunk driving -- although NHTSA lumps such fatalities in with all the rest as "alcohol-related." That, in turn, morphs into "drunk driving" -- but it's inaccurate to lump the two together.
By equating "alcohol-related" with "drunk driving," NMA argues that NHTSA deliberately distorts the extent of the problem with impaired motorists, creating an impression of widespread boozing and driving that isn't factually supportable -- but which is used with great effectiveness for propaganda purposes by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to further what has become a crusade, not merely against drunk driving, but against drinking -- period.
To back this assertion up, NMA has announced it will award $20,000 to the first person who can substantiate the claim by NHTSA that 17,970 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2002. The contest is being held in cooperation with two other groups -- getMADD.com and RIDL -- who also take issue with NHTSA's figures and with increasingly radical anti-drinking groups such as MADD, whom they believe have taken a legitimate issue and run amok with it.
Going after dangerous drunks has, they argue, become a neo-prohibitionist crusade that is seeking to continuously "define drunkennes down" to the point of absurdity, putting responsible Americans who drink socially in the same category as the small minority of irresponsible people who drink to excess and then get behind the wheel of a car.
As evidence of this, NMA and others opposed to MADD point out that the group seeks the adoption of maximum allowable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) levels significantly lower than the current .08 percent BAC that defines "drunk driving" in most states -- .06 or even .04 BAC, a level that can be reached after as little as a single drink over dinner. Former MADD President Karolyn Nunnallee has argued that "many people are dangerously impaired at even .05 BAC" -- which is about where you'd be after a little more than one beer on an empty stomach. If BAC laws are lowered beyond .06, as MADD continues to press for, it will mean that anyone who has had even one drink will be in peril of arrest for "drunk driving" -- notwithstanding that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that such a person is impaired, let alone "drunk."
The NMA contest should settle this debate clearly. If NHTSA and MADD are right and nearly 20,000 Americans are indeed killed each year by drunk drivers, it ought to be easy enough to back up. But if NMA is right and the NHTSA claim can't be backed-up with verifiable scientific data -- for example, case by case evidence that each fatality was caused by a driver with at least a .08 BAC level -- then we know the statistics have been jiggled with to further a political agenda.
Here are the contest's four rules:
1. Twenty thousand dollars will be paid to the first person who can document that 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or other drugs in 2002.
2. The definition of "impaired" is the NHTSA definition stated on the NHTSA web site: "Impaired driving can be defined as a reduction in the performance of critical driving tasks due to the effects of alcohol or other drugs," substituting the words "is defined" for "can be defined" in their definition.
3. "Proof" of this claim must include verifiable data that clearly proves 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs.
4. The names, facts and figures must be from a recognized source.
It's as simple -- or as hard -- as that. Either we've got a realproblem that needs to be dealt with, or we've got an increasingly politicized government agency aiding a latter-day witch hunt.
To learn more, or submit an entry, check out the National Motorists Association at www.motorists.org. The link to the contest's rules is http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/alcoholfatalitieschallenge.html.
By Eric Peters
How many people would you guess are killed each year in the United States by drunk drivers? According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration (NHTSA), the figure is roughly 18,000 annually (17,970 in 2002). That's about 42 percent of all highway fatalities -- and works out to a drunk driving death "every 30 minutes, nearly 50 people a day," every day of the year, as a NHTSA radio ad put it. That's a lot of drunk driving -- even in a nation of 280 million people.
But is it an accurate portrayal?
According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), an advocacy group often at odds with the conventional wisdom on topics ranging from speed limits to mandatory seat belt laws, the numbers trotted out by NHTSA are wildly exaggerated -- puffed up by including deaths where alcohol was not the cause but merely present. In some cases, the driver may not have been drinking at all -- as when an inebriated pedestrain stray into a busy street and is struck by a vehicle. NHTSA defines such a fatality as "alcohol related" -- but that's not the same thing as caused by drunk driving. Similarly, an inebriated passenger riding home in a car that happens to be struck by a speeding car running a red light is not the victim of drunk driving -- although NHTSA lumps such fatalities in with all the rest as "alcohol-related." That, in turn, morphs into "drunk driving" -- but it's inaccurate to lump the two together.
By equating "alcohol-related" with "drunk driving," NMA argues that NHTSA deliberately distorts the extent of the problem with impaired motorists, creating an impression of widespread boozing and driving that isn't factually supportable -- but which is used with great effectiveness for propaganda purposes by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to further what has become a crusade, not merely against drunk driving, but against drinking -- period.
To back this assertion up, NMA has announced it will award $20,000 to the first person who can substantiate the claim by NHTSA that 17,970 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2002. The contest is being held in cooperation with two other groups -- getMADD.com and RIDL -- who also take issue with NHTSA's figures and with increasingly radical anti-drinking groups such as MADD, whom they believe have taken a legitimate issue and run amok with it.
Going after dangerous drunks has, they argue, become a neo-prohibitionist crusade that is seeking to continuously "define drunkennes down" to the point of absurdity, putting responsible Americans who drink socially in the same category as the small minority of irresponsible people who drink to excess and then get behind the wheel of a car.
As evidence of this, NMA and others opposed to MADD point out that the group seeks the adoption of maximum allowable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) levels significantly lower than the current .08 percent BAC that defines "drunk driving" in most states -- .06 or even .04 BAC, a level that can be reached after as little as a single drink over dinner. Former MADD President Karolyn Nunnallee has argued that "many people are dangerously impaired at even .05 BAC" -- which is about where you'd be after a little more than one beer on an empty stomach. If BAC laws are lowered beyond .06, as MADD continues to press for, it will mean that anyone who has had even one drink will be in peril of arrest for "drunk driving" -- notwithstanding that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that such a person is impaired, let alone "drunk."
The NMA contest should settle this debate clearly. If NHTSA and MADD are right and nearly 20,000 Americans are indeed killed each year by drunk drivers, it ought to be easy enough to back up. But if NMA is right and the NHTSA claim can't be backed-up with verifiable scientific data -- for example, case by case evidence that each fatality was caused by a driver with at least a .08 BAC level -- then we know the statistics have been jiggled with to further a political agenda.
Here are the contest's four rules:
1. Twenty thousand dollars will be paid to the first person who can document that 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or other drugs in 2002.
2. The definition of "impaired" is the NHTSA definition stated on the NHTSA web site: "Impaired driving can be defined as a reduction in the performance of critical driving tasks due to the effects of alcohol or other drugs," substituting the words "is defined" for "can be defined" in their definition.
3. "Proof" of this claim must include verifiable data that clearly proves 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs.
4. The names, facts and figures must be from a recognized source.
It's as simple -- or as hard -- as that. Either we've got a realproblem that needs to be dealt with, or we've got an increasingly politicized government agency aiding a latter-day witch hunt.
To learn more, or submit an entry, check out the National Motorists Association at www.motorists.org. The link to the contest's rules is http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/alcoholfatalitieschallenge.html.
Synpax
Well-known member
MattTheSkywalker said:
I want to limit myself to one post a day, but I wanted to go back and quickly refute this one too.
From the Northern Virginia MADD chapter:
"Money that is contributed to the local chapter is used locally. There is no requirement for a local chapter to send any money to either the state organization or to MADD National. We do transfer money to the national organization when we purchase supplies (such as brochures and posters) or services (such as the multimedia production that is shown in schools) but we could also procure similar items from local vendors if we wanted to do so. I hope that this answers your contemporaries' question.
Additionally, my mother is involved with a local MADD and, similarly, the money raised locally is spent locally.
Additionally, if you look at the financial report at madd.org, you can see that 80% or so of their funding comes directly from individual contributors TO the national MADD organization.
Mr. dB said:
What NHTSA does is categorize every fatality in which alcohol is inovlved (they define alcohol involvement as SOMEONE) invovled having a BAC of at least .02.
No state will charge you with anything at .02 unless you are under 21, and no reasonable person would contend that a BAC of .02 results in "impairment".
Yet that is the assumption NHTSA makes. This is the necesasry and predictable outcome of bad legislation.
Synpax said:
Is that a response to an email you sent to MADD? Looks like it. You can't hope to present that to me and say that anything is refuted.
My source on MADD's funding is the regional director a MADD chapter. I'm pretty sure she's right on, since it was admitted under oath.
Synpax
Well-known member
I gave you a quote, an anecdote, and a link to MADD's website saying that most of their money comes from individual donors, not from chapters - on forms where if they were lying their board of directors would be in jail.
And you give me one anecdote that surely could be backed up since, if it was under oath, must surely be transcribed - yet provide no link and say that *I* shouldn't believe *you*?
And you give me one anecdote that surely could be backed up since, if it was under oath, must surely be transcribed - yet provide no link and say that *I* shouldn't believe *you*?
Synpax said:
I can't give you a link to what I am talking about because there is some personal involvement and it is pre-trial - not yet public record. When it is concluded I will be happy to discuss it in great detail if permitted by the Court. I'll probably put anything that I can up on the web.
I am most interested on your thoughts on your thoughts on Post #86, which is really the heart of this issue anyway.
I also want to thank youfor your participation on this thread. I sent you some K already - more if I can.
BO-DEN
New member
if you ever take the time to hear him off the podium. i have an artical on my desk at home that talks about bush speaking at a college... the dean is jewish.... when the dean aproached him about a religious slur he spilled out. he told the dean thatSynpax said:
"god dose not love him and he was not going to heaven because of his religion". you can believe this or not... but politions are liars. just cause one works along side you dosnt mean they dont curse you.
this man is an evangelist extreamest... its no secret
we need to stop judging canidates on what they say on dabate night and start listing in on poker night.
condalezza rice , and powel work with the president. and its important that there personal lives dont interfear. how many people do you work with that you dont like for whatever reason and they dont know it?
(im just making my point)
i may be wrong ... but year in year out nothing changes.
and for your information i am registered to vote,and i do. i just dont trust anyone i dont know..... (THEY)the goverment tells me who won the election. just like (THEY) the goverment clames the people in WACO TX. commited suisied.
i didnt count the votes nore can i. so i trust the goverment?
this is were i stop. having blind faith in anyone or anything is fataly stupid.
and get this straight..... no one gives me my rights
ill kill and die for my way of life, and that means ANYONE that threantens them.
i have no problem leaving this country as soon as i dont feel like an american anymore.
this goverment like all systems before it are temporary.
BO-DEN
Mr. dB said:
Yes, it could. The 18,000 number is a lie.
But I don;t blame MADD and similar agencies for lobbying - politicians are the ones who sell influence, so it's no surprise that people are buying.
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
What happens if you're convicted of DUI but don't own a vehicle?
javaguru
Banned
If you lease it makes no difference. If you were driving someone elses car probably nothing as far as their license plates. You would get the standard for a first time offender, in Ohio that's 3 or 6 days in county jail(depending on BAC) with the other 30 days suspended, $500.00+ fine, 6-12 month suspension with 30 days before you'll be given driving privelages, and 3-5 years probation. You'll also likely be sentenced to mandatory drug counseling as part of your probation, at your expense, and you'll have to file a special sr22 insurance bond with the state. This combined with the DUI usually increases insurance rates by 50%-75% for 3-5 years. To get your drivers license back at the end of the suspension you'll have to pay the BMV a $435.00 re-instatement fee. The average person spends $5,000.00 on a DUI.
